Case Studies - Consumer Credit Disputes

‘Mrs G’ came to us after Bank of Scotland plc (“the creditor”) had obtained a Final Charging Order pursuant to a Default Judgment in the sum of £4,093.60.

It was apparent to us that ‘Mrs G’ had a valid defence to the claim brought against her by the creditor. We therefore made an application to set aside the Judgment, albeit some two years after it had been awarded.

Our application was successful. As such, the Final Charging Order was removed and the Judgment set aside. This allowed us to file a defence to the claim on behalf of ‘Mrs G’.

The claim was a small claim in value (less that £5,000.00). There are strict rules relating to evidence which are not applicable to the small clams track. If the defence filed on behalf of ‘Mrs G’ was to be successful, we would need those rules relating to evidence to apply, it was therefore vital that the claim was allocated to the Fast Track.

At the allocation hearing, we argued that the claim should be allocated to the Fast Track due to the complexity of the issues in dispute. We were successful with our argument and the claim was duly allocated to the Fast Track.

The case proceeded to Trial and was heard in the Liverpool County Court.

After hearing the evidence of both parties, the Court was unable to make an enforcement order against ‘Mrs G’ due to the creditor’s failings under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Consequently, the creditors claim was dismissed bringing the matter to an end for ‘Mrs G’.

Mr & Mrs S contacted MSB regarding a secured loan which they had on their property. There were issues regarding high levels of interest and charges which had been applied to the account. Given the amount which was outstanding as a result of the additional sums applied to the account, Mr & Mrs S found themselves in a position where they would never have been able to repay the sums.

Possession proceedings were issued by the loan company to recover the sums allegedly owing to them. MSB sought to defend the matter on the basis that the agreement has not been terminated correctly and a counterclaim was issued to recover some of the sums paid by Mr & Mrs S in respect of the interest and charges.

The Judge dismissed the possession proceedings and ordered that the loan company remove the charge which was registered over the property. Further the Judge ordered the loan company to pay Mr & Mrs S a lump sum in respect of the “extortionate charges which had been applied to the account without an adequate explanation of what they were for”. The Judge also ordered the loan company to pay all the legal fees.